It's crystal clear that the player who loses his /her nationality permanently, through no will of their own, just has to request a change of association, even if they have been capped at any level previously by the country who stripped them of their citizenship. Considering that, then there is no way on this earth that such a player would be asked to fulfil a 5 year residency, a requirement that was put in place for an entirely different scenario.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
And If there are no conditions laid out in article 8.2, then it's up to whoever decides these matters to rubber stamp the request.
article 8. 2
If a Player who has been fielded by his Association in an
international match in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 permanently
loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against
his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may
request permission to play for another Association whose
nationality he already has or has acquired
Ha, I naturally see room for uncertainty and ambiguity in the absence of explicit clarity, but I would have sided with your interpretation, geysir, if I'd had to choose.
I've made some headway and have uncovered some new and interesting information, which I'm hoping to share. I'll report back with as many details as I can if and when I get approval from my source.
You do accept that the grande exception is clearly explicit in the first part? that FIFA have thrown out the biggest permanent non-negotiable stumbling block to a player changing associations and you are looking for absolute clarity? You say they haven't ruled out hidden hurdles that probably only exist in your head?Ha, I naturally see room for uncertainty and ambiguity in the absence of explicit clarity, but I would have sided with your interpretation, geysir, if I'd had to choose.
That, who knows what hidden excuse the the FIFA official can pull out from his sleeve in order to negate the application?
The conditions from article 7 don't apply as they apply to players who assume a new nationality - under article 7 - and also look to qualify under article 7.
Our hypothetical player is applying under article 8 and under article 8 the cap fits perfectly, with more than sufficient clarity in print
There is a similar scenario where regular eligibility requirements are thrown out the window when new associations are formed from the ashes of old ones. All the player's eligibility is simply transferred to the new association, eg with Stankovic.
Afair, the mention of players losing citizenship forcibly, came up during the time around 2003 when Qatar was looking to naturalise those 3 Brazilians, afair, the context was more to do with the issue of players losing their nationality through their own choices and not being forced to do so.
Last edited by geysir; 10/02/2015 at 7:43 PM.
I was merely seeking clarity and, as stated, would have sided with your interpretation if pushed. I never suggested there were any hurdles that would disqualify an application, nor would I dare. Is it explicit though? I don't see how. Is my head switched off? Where is the "first part" to which you refer? There's simply an absence of any further conditions, no? The article does explicitly mention the acquisition of a new nationality, however; of course, there is a separate article (7) that covers the acquisition of a new nationality ordinarily, so I simply sought to discount with certainty the slightest of possibilities that it might, on the off-chance, apply on top of or in tandem with article 8.2 and no more, I swear!You do accept that the grande exception is clearly explicit in the first part? that FIFA have thrown out the biggest permanent non-negotiable stumbling block to a player changing associations and you are looking for absolute clarity? You say they haven't ruled out hidden hurdles that probably only exist in your head?
That, who knows what hidden excuse the the FIFA official can pull out from his sleeve in order to negate the application?
Dejan Stanković's eligibility was simply transferred from FR Yugoslavia to Serbia & Montenegro to Serbia because each of those teams were the official successor to the previous one. The present-day FA of Serbia is accepted as having joined FIFA as the FA of Yugoslavia in 1921. Better examples, in terms of the rules going out the window, would be those players who are granted permission to switch to a newly-created FIFA association despite competitive appearances for a still-existing one, no? Mirko Vučinić, for example, played at competitive senior level for Serbia & Montenegro before switching to the completely new Montenegro, where he was born, upon the split of the union. Would Belgrade-born Stanković have been permitted to switch to Montenegro upon the split? Surely not.There is a similar scenario where regular eligibility requirements are thrown out the window when new associations are formed from the ashes of old ones. All the player's eligibility is simply transferred to the new association, eg with Stankovic.
Did FIFA, or the Players’ Status Committee, publish any document outlining that the ordinary rules would no longer apply (along with the nature of this exception) in the specific case of Montenegro, or have they ever referred to political splits generally and their effects on eligibility? I'm sure they have somewhere. Did we discuss this before, or am I confusing it with the temporary year-long(?) "clemency" period that was granted to players then over 21 who would have represented and become tied to an association at youth level after FIFA introduced a right to a solitary switch for dual nationals who had not played senior competitive football before the age of 21?
Was there a concern that the Brazilians were going to lose their Brazilian nationality and, if so, why? Do we know of any examples of players who have been permitted to play for a new international team on the basis of article 8.2?Afair, the mention of players losing citizenship forcibly, came up during the time around 2003 when Qatar was looking to naturalise those 3 Brazilians, afair, the context was more to do with the issue of players losing their nationality through their own choices and not being forced to do so.
I was just having a more detailed look through the list of dual/multiple national players on the link to the graphic on the last page and came across some interesting tidbits. First of all, we see some instances of the idea of national identity really transcending the limits of political state boundaries in the Balkans with three of Croatia's squad having been born in Bosnia & Herzegovina and two of the Bosnian squad having been born in Croatia. Would anyone ever take seriously an ignoramus demanding that the likes of Bosnian ethnic Croats Vedran Ćorluka, Dejan Lovren or Nikica Jelavić "line out for where they were born"? Or, even more contentiously, nay perversely, imagine demands being made of Kosovar players to represent Serbia...
The page also claims that Samuel Eto'o possesses Spanish citizenship, whilst Alex Song possesses French citizenship. Indeed, these facts appear to be very much public knowledge and are corroborated elsewhere: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ca/7050416.stm and http://www.insidespanishfootball.com...ench-passport/
What is intriguing about this is that Cameroon does not officially permit its citizens to possess dual citizenship, so how these two are permitted to do so, I'm not quite sure. In fact, in 2012, Alex Song was able to acquire, without issue and in the knowledge of the Cameroonian authorities, a French passport from the French embassy in Cameroon after his Cameroonian passport was stolen whilst in Yaounde and he was then able to travel out of the country on said French passport.
Maybe the prohibition on dual citizenship is something that just isn't rigourously enforced by the Cameroonian authorities?...
I wasn't aware of this either, but Song moved to France at the age of 16 to play for Bastia and, according to Wikipedia, actually played for France at under-16 level. I wonder was he in possession of French citizenship at the time or did he only acquire it after residing in France for roughly half a decade after this whilst playing for Bastia. I suspect this under-16 game was not a competitive fixture as my understanding is that FIFA recognise only under-17, under-19 and under-21 levels, so even if he wasn't actually a French citizen at the time, it probably wouldn't have mattered a huge deal. Indeed, we've had a few English Everton youngsters - Gerard Kinsella and Jay Wallace - represent us in under-age friendlies despite them not being eligible at all. Fair enough, Kinsella sounds like he could be Irish, but Wallace?!
Does anyone know if France-born Cameroonians Benoît Assou-Ekotto or Sébastien Bassong require work permits to play in England? If not, and I suspect not as I can't see any mention of them ever having had to apply for them, having done a quick Google search, they are both probably still in simultaneous possession of their French (EU) citizenship by virtue of having been born and raised in Arras and Paris, respectively.
Just to get back to the idea of loss of nationality (as mentioned in article 8.2) though; if, say, Cameroon did decide for whatever reason to rigourously enforce its Cameroonian citizenship-only rule and Alex Song was stripped of his citizenship against his will on the basis of his simultaneous possession of French citizenship, would or could he become eligible to play for France upon an application to do so? Could the likes of Qatar, in such a universe, cynically exploit such a situation and offer Cameroonians Qatari citizenship in the knowledge that this would see them lose their native citizenship and, thus, potentially render them immediately eligible to play for Qatar upon successful application? Is that too preposterous a scenario to imagine?
This might interest you Danny. It comments on Cameroon's 'schizophrenic' attitude to dual citizenship.
http://www.dibussi.com/2006/05/dual_citizenshi.html
Just the man.
Wasn't it yourself Osa who brought up Japan's blind-eye to dual citizenship some pages back in relation to a potential Irish recruit in that they won't act if they don't know?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Yes, they are aware of people who are dual nationals but choose to do nothing about it.
It is somewhat different for a foreign national who wants to become a Japanese citizen - they seem to be more insistent that the person gives up their other nationality, but not for those who are either dual citizens from birth or who take up another citizenship later in life.
Who is this Frank Feighan TD bloke from Rozzie Land?
http://www.the42.ie/frank-feighan-bi...50825-Feb2015/
Danny should email him. Paul should make sure he reads it. Seriously. I can anticipate these talks going ahead with every single participant ignorant of the facts.
I just tweeted Danny's blog to him.
Came across an interesting case of a player from present-day Georgia - Akhrik Tsveiba - who represented four different countries between 1990 and 1997; the USSR (18 caps), the CIS (7 caps), Ukraine (1 cap) and Russia (8 caps). It seems he played competitively for the USSR (including at Italia '90) and CIS (including at Euro '92), but then played in a friendly for Ukraine in 1993 whilst attached to Dynamo Kyiv before FIFA permitted him to represent Russia competitively during qualification for France '98.
It's clearly not exhaustive, but I thought this was an interesting list of nationality transfers in international football: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ation_football
He's very late to the game, but, God, that's awful. I'm just firing off a stream of tweets to him myself. I hope he takes note.
There is also a button on the42.ie underneath the article where you can email corrections directly to the author. You should probably also email his official Oireachtas address.
I've sent the following to Feighan's Oireachtas address lest he goes and embarrasses himself in front of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly on Monday!
Frank,
I read your piece published on The42.ie/Journal.ie in relation to NI-born Irish nationals playing for Ireland and would like to share some thoughts with you on the matter.
I wrote the following back in 2011 in order to debunk many of the myths in the mainstream media surrounding the issue and would urge you to have read: http://playereligibilityinireland.bl...ontext-of.html
It's been four years since the Court of Arbitration for Sport gave its judgment on this, but, unfortunately, it appears many Irish people remain misinformed and ignorant of the facts and reality of the situation. Sadly, I see you have repeated one or two of these myths yourself in your piece. As a result, I am more than happy to enhance your understanding of the situation so that you can be fully informed on the matter before discussing it in front of the forthcoming British Irish Parliamentary Assembly.
First of all, the GFA has nothing to do with this in substance and insofar as footballing eligibility is governed by FIFA's Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes. Article 5.1 of those regulations states:
"Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country."
In principle, Irish nationals born north of the border have been eligible to play for the FAI for so long as the entitlement to Irish nationality has been island-wide. Or since 1956, more precisely, with the passing of the Irish Nationality Act 1956. As far back as 1946, the rule governing international footballing eligibility, Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the FIFA, stated:
“The players (NB. of International Matches) must be selected by the National Associations concerned and be subjects of the country they represent”.
Thankfully, there is a greater awareness of the rules and rights of players nowadays, but, sadly, this was not always the case. Some further information here on how Harry Cavan and the IFA denied northern-born Irish nationals, such as Jimmy McGeough, from representing Ireland in the past: http://www.the42.ie/profile/30794/ir...y-fai-3477859/
To the present day, however; the reason northern-born Irish nationals declare for Ireland is because they identify with the independent Irish national identity that is officially channeled through the Irish state. They are as much legal citizens of the Irish nation as you are. Depriving players of the choice to play for their country and compelling or forcing them to play for another association with whom they don't identify does nothing to aid relations or reconciliation. Recognition and respect for/tolerance of identity and difference is necessary for genuine reconciliation, as is recognised and encouraged by the GFA that you are keen to cite.
This situation has already been looked at in great detail by both FIFA and the CAS in the case of Belfast-born Daniel Kearns (http://web.archive.org/web/201107210...ard%202071.pdf). The CAS ruled in the FAI's favour in that case. You might be surprised to note that the IFA had already rejected a compromise offer from FIFA that the FAI were happy to accept by then.
The FAI simply facilitate Irish nationals who are willing and good enough to play for their country. Those players from the north who declare for the FAI make that decision themselves, as is their right protected by FIFA rules. To deprive them of this right by way of governmental intervention or an internal/informal agreement between the FAI and the IFA would be to contravene FIFA's rules, which apply universally and uniformly to the FAI and every other association.
If their public utterances are to be believed, the IFA have since come to terms with rules and have acknowledged the right of Irish nationals to play for their country. Indeed, the IFA have also benefited from FIFA's allowance for players to switch association once (the rule under which northern-born players can switch from the IFA to the FAI). Alex Bruce, for example, played for the FAI (at senior level) before switching to the IFA. He is not the only case.
The prospect of an all-unionist/Protestant community NI team simply hasn't transpired either since the headline cases a few years ago, nor is there any indication it will. To suggest there is "a very real danger that both international football teams on the island might come to represent almost exclusively Nationalist and Unionist communities" is simply baseless scaremongering. Where is your evidence for this? Plenty of players from Catholic or nationalist backgrounds (Niall McGinn, for example) still play for the IFA and will do so in the future.
As to why I think northern-born players representing the FAI is a relatively recent phenomenon, here is another piece I wrote offering further thoughts on that: http://backpagefootball.com/so-what-...for-fai/34570/
I hope you will take all of the above on board in order to better inform yourself on this matter before your co-chairing of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly.
Regards,
DI.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 20/02/2015 at 10:14 PM.
After having been directed his way by the Asser International Sports Law Blog on Twitter, I’ve been in communication with sports lawyer Yann Hafner of the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland and have been asking him for his thoughts on the Qatari cases raised by Irwin as well as the eligibility regulations generally. He has been glad to help and, I must say, has been tremendously informative and quick in responding to my multiple e-mails and replies to impart his expertise on a topic about which he has written and spoken extensively. He’s presently completing a PhD (Le concept de nationalité sportive: état des lieux, enjeux et perspectives d'avenir) on the matter of sporting nationality/eligibility in international sport, but I linked him to the thread here and he has permitted me to share the information and thoughts he relayed to me by e-mail. I've compiled the information shared with me from various emails into a few posts here. I had promised him I'd let him read what I wanted to share and I didn't want to publish anything without his explicit approval first, so that was the only thing holding me back once I had everything compiled a few days ago and was satisfied it all made sense and was consistent/harmonious. He wasn’t familiar with the specific cases of Muntari or Boudiaf, but what he had to say was all very interesting and it has shed an awful lot of new light on matters for me. In fact, some of what he said challenged the common interpretation many of us here share.
He has helped me compose the following, so I'll simply post it in the order he suggested and as we agreed:
Article 5 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Principle)
Notion of permanent nationality
Yann first clarified that "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish from temporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.
To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)
There is further info on the distinction and confirmation of this meaning of the reference to "residence" here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...3_en_33447.pdf
Eligibility of non-nationals in the national team of their country of residence
Not directly relevant to the Qatari cases, but he highlighted that it is common practice, as we know, for football authorities to allow foreign players to join the national side of their country of residence to play international friendlies, especially if they are minors, but there was a question then as to what should happen to them once they become adults. He mentioned the case of 17-year-old Cameroon-born Breel Embolo (similar to the case of Gedion Zelalem) who has been representing Switzerland at under-age level (in friendlies only), but for whom the Swiss association are now seeking exemption so that he can represent them competitively.
Article 7 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Acquisition of a new nationality)
Assuming a new nationality
I asked him exactly what he felt "to assume a new nationality" meant in article 7 and he explained:
I also asked about newly-acquired nationalities that applied retroactively to birth:
He offered as an example of how FIFA will not necessarily follow the lead of the state’s legislation, the body’s treatment of a right of option under the eligibility regulations:Me: I assume that the "acquiring" of a permanent nationality not dependent on residence that officially applies retroactively (according to the nationality legislation of the state concerned) as if it were from birth falls simply under the realm of article 5, whereas, if the nationality officially applies from the date of acquisition (again according to the particular state's legislation), it is considered to amount to the assuming of a new one and so article 7 comes into play?
Yann: No. FIFA will consider a nationality acquired at birth only under article 5 and any other nationality (even if under the law of the specific country it applies retroactively) under articles 5 and 7.
I wasn't wholly satisfied by this as wasn't sure how FIFA could easily determine that a nationality had not been effective from birth when the relevant nationality legislation of a particular state stated it had been. I suggested then to Yann that, perhaps, if nationality is assumed automatically from/by birth, FIFA will deem it effective from birth and only article 5 will apply, but if its acquirement is not automatically "imposed" or conferred and requires an application process later in life, it will be deemed by FIFA to be effective from the date the application was accepted, even if the relevant legislation states it will apply retroactively as if from birth once acquired, and so article 7 will be further invoked. Yann concurred with this interpretation and felt this was exactly how FIFA distinguished.
The stipulation of article 7(d)
During his research, Yann discovered that the FIFA administration has granted, with the approval of the Players’ Status Committee, exception to the five-year residency after the age of 18 stipulation in certain cases. FIFA adopts a case-by-case approach in this respect.
Concerning the Embolo and Zelalem cases, Yann said:
If you’re competent in French, there’s some more info in this article he sent me:
Here is another piece: http://www.lematin.ch/slider%20lemat...story/24162486
I’ve used my browser’s translator to get the following from the original French:
The reason why the Swiss association is seeking an exemption, is that, and Yann is adamant about this, the criteria of article 7 theoretically and as a matter of principle apply to both minors and adults. I had him re-confirm this a few times just to make sure I was understanding him correctly as it is completely contrary to what we have assumed here.
I put forward our interpretation or presumption that naturalised under-18s qualify automatically (possibly under article 5.1 alone) without the invoking of article 7, as if their new nationality was not considered a newly-acquired one for the purpose of the regulations because it was acquired as a minor or as if the eligibility criteria simply didn't apply because they were minors, but he stated that this simply wasn’t correct as it breached the literal wording of the regulations. Minors who acquire a new nationality after birth also must ordinarily satisfy the article 7 criteria, irrespective of age. Of our interpretation, he stated:
See section 12.2.2 on pages 22-23 of the Agenda for the 61st Congress in 2011 for the UAEF’s proposal to amend article 7 (then article 17): http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affed...011_inhalt.pdf
The UAEF sought amendment for the very reason that article 7(d) does apply to minors. They wished to see the stipulation in article 7(d) reduced to three years from five and proposed a new criterion (e) which would have rendered a player who assumed a new nationality eligible if he had "lived continuously for at least five years before the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association".
See pages 30-31 of the Minutes of the 61st Congress for confirmation of the rejection of the proposal and the opinion of Ángel María Villar Llona who confirmed that the article was intended to apply to minors in limiting their transfer: http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affed...es2011_all.pdf
Yann understands that exemptions are most likely to be granted "when a player can prove he has lived in its country of naturalization for a period close to five-year, even before the age of 18". He confirmed there have been German and Australian cases (although he isn’t aware of the names of the specific players concerned), and in the latter case, he said "it is noteworthy to know that the Australian FA dropped its requested to amend the FIFA regulation just before the 2013 Congress", we presume because they were granted or promised exemptions for naturalised under-age players in return.
See section 13.2 on page 36 of the Minutes from the 63rd Congress in 2013 confirming Australia’s withdrawal of the proposal: http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affed...kt_neutral.pdf
He made the following very insightful points as to why FIFA might prefer a continuation of the present situation whereby exemptions are granted with article 7(d) still intact:
Perhaps the FIFA administration tries to prevent football players rushing to courts by granting these exceptions. If FIFA sought to apply their regulations strictly to a player who had not satisfied the five-year residency rule, Yann felt the player "could argue that FIFA regulations prevent him to seek employment in another country, thus tying him to the said country, and that it amounts to a restriction to his freedom of movement under EU law. The length of the ban could also be deemed not proportionate, especially when tied to the 18th birthday of the player".
In explaining how a strict application of article 7 may be seen as impinging upon a player’s rights under EU law, he elaborated in reference to Embolo:
So, from all of this, we can see that the Players' Status Committee is legally-bound by the regulations in theory, but the practical reality contravenes this. In effect, when the Players’ Status Committee grants an exemption, it is acting extra-legally or outside of the regulations because there is no express provision for such authority or such a role. For this reason, Yann favours the option of incorporating some new text into the regulations in order to expressly allow for the Players’ Status Committee to decide on border-line cases and grant exemptions with objective and identifiable criteria. He stated:
I wondered: "If FIFA are indeed concerned about the legality of Article 7(d), as you suspect, why haven’t they replaced/amended it? Do they fear a potential opening up 'free-for-all' and instead prefer to rely on the ignorance of players/associations as to their possible legal rights and an unwillingness to bring FIFA to court in favour of accepting an exemption from the Players’ Status Committee?"
Yann responded to this as follows:
In summary he could not see, on the face of it, how Muntari and Boudiaf are eligible to play for Qatar, so suspects they both might have benefited from exemptions of which we are not aware granted by the Players’ Status Committee. Unfortunately, the Committee do not publish their decisions so we have no way of knowing for certain when an exemption might have been granted nor to whom, unless someone involved decides to reveal information for whatever reason. The Committee can grant exemptions to both minors and adults if the circumstances are considered pressing enough.
I posed a scenario with some follow-up questions for further illumination:
Me: Qatar are playing a competitive game against Team X and win the game. Team X notices that two of Qatar's players who've played in the game are naturalised Qatari citizens with no birth or familial links to Qatar, but neither have resided in Qatar for five years after the age of 18 either. In fact, they've only been residing in Qatar for two and four years respectively after the age of 18. Team X suspects that neither fulfill the ordinary eligibility criteria outlined in article 7; indeed, neither of the players do fulfill any of the criteria upon Team X's investigation. Team X raises the issue with FIFA and asks FIFA to check the situation out to ensure everything is in order and the regulations are being adhered to. Team X is seeking some sort penalty for Qatar for possibly having fielded ineligible players. However, (let's accept the following for the sake of argument) the reason these players are playing for Qatar in the first place is because the Players' Status Committee has granted these two players exemptions from the ordinary application of the regulations due to their particular circumstances. Therefore, they are what you might call "extra-legally eligible" by virtue of this exemption.
What would FIFA say to Team X in response to the complaint? Would FIFA acknowledge to Team X that the eligibility of these players doesn't strictly adhere to the governing regulations but that the players had received exemptions from the Players' Status Committee, so, therefore, everything is, in fact, in order, as far as they're concerned, even though there is no express legal basis for all of this?
Yann: This is an educated guess, but I think it is safe to assume that FIFA would say that these players have been cleared by the Player’s Status Committee.
Me: If Team X was not satisfied with this, could they potentially bring the case to the CAS?
Yann: In my opinion, Team X has the right to appeal the decision.
Me: Would Team X have a case, do you think, or would the CAS be likely to accept the extra-legal exemption as permissible even though FIFA's regulations do not explicitly provide room for such exemptions?
Yann: Betting on the outcome of such as case is like playing the Russian roulette. Both side have strong arguments. Team X has the wording of the regulations on its side. FIFA could advocate that article 7 was not drafted to cast the case of player Y & Z since they has been living for instance for 10 years in the country but have only been naturalized recently. As for Muntari and Boudiaf, it is really difficult to say.
Me: Could the CAS rule the two Qatari players ineligible and advise FIFA to expressly make way for exemptions in the Regulations according to objective and identifiable criteria, as you say?
Yann: Sure – but CAS would have to answer the following questions: i) what of the eligibility of these players in the future and ii) what of the results of the game? CAS recommended the IIHF (International Ice hockey Federation) to amend its eligibility rules following a ruling from an Austrian court (although CAS ruled in favour of the IIHF in that specific case). Another CAS panel recommended the IOC to change the Olympic Charter following a dispute at the Olympic Games, and the IOC did so.
Irwin had posed a scenario in the Noe Baba thread, which I also sent Yann’s way in more-or-less the same form just for further clarification. Hope you don’t mind Irwin, but here’s what I posed and Yann’s response:
Article 8 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (change of association)Me: Parent(s) move to Ireland from country X and are naturalised. Their child remains in country X until they are naturalised and then joins parents in Ireland aged 15. Parent(s) then petition for child to be granted Irish citizenship through naturalisation. This is approved. Would this ordinarily render the child eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland in FIFA competition at, say, under-17 level? He has never represented country X, by the way. Or would the Football Association of Ireland have to apply to the Players’ Status Committee for a special exemption? What might the case be if the player simply arrived in Ireland alone aged 15 (without his parents) and was, for the sake of argument, granted Irish citizenship immediately? Would he have to receive an exemption to represent the Republic of Ireland?
Yann: I think the player would have to request an exemption in both cases. To the best of my knowledge, exemptions were granted only when the player arrived at a very young age in its country of naturalisation.
This may surprise you, geysir, but he also suggested there is a nexus between article 8.2 and article 7 and that any player to whom article 8.2 applies in relation to lost nationality would ordinarily have to satisfy one of the criteria in article 7 to play for a new country, having acquired a new nationality, except in the case the-said new nationality has been imposed upon him. This was his opinion, however, and he admitted that his opinion is not shared by some members of the FIFA administration. On article 8.2, he stated (and indeed highlighted the case of Stanković, as you had above, geysir):
I don't have the time to fully digest that right now, Danny, but thank you for doing the research and bringing it to us.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks